The Crosstalk Photographs for Laymen.


The response of the IEEE to "The End of Electric Charge and Current as we know them"

Ivor Catt. 7 July 2010

 The document is also here





About classical electrodynamics

The 109 Experiment


Editor Lombardi’s first and last reply, “over the past months .... “, below, is advisedly slovenly, to support the idea that my approaches to him, including the original one in March 2010 – a very short article announcing an error in my 1967 article in his journal – are trivial. His remit is to block scientific advance, more so with major scientific advance. In the latter case, he has to appear to spend very little time on the matter. The more important the disclosure, the less attention he must give to it. It is a great relief to me that he rejected my later, major disclosure, "The End of Electric Charge and Current as we know them" , within hours. This saved me a lot of time and trouble. It leads one to think that perhaps the more important a scientific disclosure is, the less time it takes to reject it for publication.


The End of the Enlightenment.  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .

"The Scientific Referee System" .


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor Catt" <>
To: "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
Cc: .... ....
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:26 PM
Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers

> Extraordinary.
> I have just seen and listened to you at
> My first approach to you, in March 2010, was to submit a very short piece
> for publication. It said that I had made a mistake in my 20pp article
> published in your journal, the article now at
> . You have never replied or
> acknowledged receipt.
> I understand that in your first and (you say) last communication to me,
> below, you say that my submission does not fall within your duties as
> editor.
> My first ever communication with you was as follows;
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM
> Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers
> To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
> Fabrizio Lombardi
> Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Northeastern University
> Boston, MA  02115  phone: +1 617.373.4159
> For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.
> Even and Odd Modes
> My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE
> Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at
> , contained an error. My mathematics,
> which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law. The
> rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was permissible.
> However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law. The error is fully
> discussed at [now preferably at
> ].
> Ivor Catt
> Ivor Catt is at
> +44 (0)1727 864257
> 121 Westfields,
> St. Albans AL3 4JR,
> England

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Early today, see below, I wrote to you, Lombardi; "In the case of
> Lombardi, he does not reply to my approaches by email and letter. These
> cases give interesting new instances of the procedure of censorship for
> the student of censorship which go far beyond the traditional, assumed
> procedure." Now, at 6.53pm, below, you give an even more extreme instance
> of the censorship procedure. If one of your authors, myself, submits a
> very short piece saying he made a mistake in your journal, you do not
> reply. I wonder if you would reply if someone else submitted an article
> pointing to my error?
> In 1996 (see ) I wrote;
> "Rudeness[1]. A decade ago I said that Ethics is one of the defences of an
> entrenched Establishment. Anything done in defence of an entrenched
> Establishment is ethical. Anything done which threatens an entrenched
> Establishment is unethical."
> You are presenting valuable insight for those studying the mechanism of
> censorsuip.
> Yours faithfully,
> Ivor Catt         6 July 2010
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
> To: "Ivor Catt" <>
> Cc: <>; "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers
>> Hi
>> over the past months I have received few emails from you, quite frankly I
>> am to say the least puzzled by your requests as with time, they are
>> getting from unusual to just odd.
>> I thought that my silence would be better understood by you;
>> unfortunately
>> it seems that we are going nowhere. So, in plain terms let me state that
>> this is my only and last reply to you: your concerns/items do not fall
>> within my duties as EIC of Tc and/or they are not in compliance with IEEE
>> CS regulations. So please stop sending me emails.
>> fl
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Ivor Catt wrote:
>>> Dear J. Calder, Fabrizio Lombardi,
>>> Editors of Proc. IEEE and Transactions on Digital Computers.
>>> I refer to , which is a major
>>> disclosure. At present it is a confidential orphan, and so is available
>>> for you to provisionally accept for publication. However, should you
>>> accept, I will have to restructure it away from
>>> , which is appropriate when
>>> disclosed on the www, not in a learned journal. Note that the IEEE
>>> welcomes request from authors for advice on how to best produce their
>>> writing. In this case, you would say it was acceptable if restructured
>>> to publish in a journal.
>>> The reason why I approach you this way is that I have a very extensive
>>> record over decades of having all papers rejected by learned journals
>>> worldwide, and have lectured and publshed on censorship. In the present
>>> case, the significance of the disclosure in
>>> is so major that it is important to
>>> establish that it was rejected for publication by refereed learned
>>> journals. I think that you will have little difficulty in rejecting,
>>> just by reading the title of the article. You will know that neither you
>>> nor your referees would risk advising publication of material with such
>>> major claims. Polanyi and Kuhn would say that you could not possibly
>>> accept. Your names will be in the historical record of what happened to
>>> this major scientific advance.
>>> My close colleagues agree that it is futile to attempt to get a
>>> scientific advance of the magnitude of
>>> published in a refereed learned
>>> journal. However, I want to complete the historical record. It will be
>>> valuable for future researchers to learn about the response of learned
>>> journal editors.
>>> Your past records are as follows. Calder rejected an important paper in
>>> the usual manner. However, he rejected another important paper which
>>> will disclose the results of a crucial experiment, before the experiment
>>> has even been conducted. In the case of Lombardi, he does not reply to
>>> my approaches by email and letter. These cases give interesting new
>>> instances of the procedure of censorship for the student of censorship
>>> which go far beyond the traditional, assumed procedure. The traditional,
>>> assumed procedure is immediate rejection or the sending out of the paper
>>> to referees, followed by accpetance or rejection based on the referees'
>>> reports.
>>> Ivor Catt          6 July 2010
>>> +44 (0)1727 864257




Dialogue with Prof. Jonathan Vos Post


Dear Ivor Catt,

You may repost quotes from me on your web site, unless I specifically
said that any given quote was in confidence.

I admire your research, and have learned the hard way about subtleties
in the protocols of publishing.

There are people who were denied Nobel Prizes, whose research deserved
such recognition, because of their burning their bridges and enraging
the Establishment.  Sir Fred Hoyle, for example.

Other great minds who already had Nobel Prizes in Physics were treated
contemptuously as crackpots, such as Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén and your
former email correspondent Brian David Josephson, FRS (born 4 January
1940; Cardiff, Wales) is a Welsh physicist, who became a Nobel Prize
laureate in 1973, but in his years as a named Chair at Cambridge
University was denied the right to have grad students or postdocs.

It 100 times better to sneak through the gates with a friend than to
storm them with righteous rage.  In my humble opinion.

The gates are real.  The gatekeepers are motivated.


Prof. Jonathan Vos Post


[I am still (July 2010) in communication with Josephson. He approached me a year ago and talked for ten minutes. - IC

It 100 times better to sneak through the gates with a friend than to storm them with righteous rage.  In my humble opinion.” – JP

Answer – What I present is too big to sneak through the gates. The refereed learned journals become irrelevant. Hey are by now cut off from the growing body of knowledge on the www. -  Ivor Catt]

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Ivor Catt <> wrote:
> Dear Professor Jonathan Post,
> I completely forgot that you had links with the IEEE. I note that for a long
> time you worked with Feynman. Please may I put what you wrote below onto my
> website?
> For the moment, until you reply, I'll only send this to the IEEE Editors
> <>; Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi
> <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>.
> Now that I and my colleagues have decided that it is not worth bothering to
> try to publish my advances in refereed learned journals, I argue that we
> enter a new phase. All these rascals should be named and shamed.
> I shall add Prof. Lewin, and others when I
> remember them. We need a "Hall of Fame", of those who have helped to block
> scientific advance.
> Note that those who help to block scientific advance sometimes receive major
> accolades. e.g. Pepper, selected by his boss as the expert and instructed to
> comment (which he did incompetently) on "The Catt Question"
> , . He
> has remained incommunicado for 17 tears after he was told that his answer
> contradicted that of Dr Neil McEwan, Reader in Electromagnetics.
> . The contradiction is unresolved. During
> this 17 years he has been "knighted for services to Physics", becoming Sir
> Michael pepper, and become Editor of the top journal in the Royal Society.
> His then boss, Lord Rees, ,
> fails to do anything about it.
> . (The IEEE botched "The Catt
> Question". See Mink at . )
> However, the Science Establishment will not protect one of their own, for
> instance Lombardi, when he is isolated. (The first duty of a Member of the
> Establishment is to insist he has never heard of such as Catt. His second
> position is to claim he has never read anything by Catt. And so on. You know
> the multi-layer defence.. The precedent is a medaeval cleric not admitting
> to have heard of a heretic, and certainly knowing of no heresy. "Modern
> Physics" is religion, not science.) (Professor D A Bell published "No Radio
> without Displacement Current in reply to our article eight months previously
> entitled
> "Displacement Current"
> (rejected by the IEEE). Bell claimed he had never read our article. The
> editor Tom Ivall said obviously he had read it.
> ) Also, a Defender of the
> Faith" - Modern Physics - will have no recourse to the law. We (or perhaps
> I) will only be telling the truth, and will bring up plenty of witnesses. I
> myself have been eight years in various law courts, and have written a book
> about the legal system. It is possible that in its final stages, the current
> strangulation of science by such as Lombardi will end up in the courts.
> On the other hand, this fellow Lombardi is surely vulnerable to an action
> for damages from me. It is damaging to me to refuse to let me correct and
> error in my publication in his journal. The legal system will not support an
> entrenched Science Establishment which is blocking scientific advance.
> Ivor Catt 7 July 2010
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Post" <>
> To: "Ivor Catt" <>
> Cc: "Forrest Bishop" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers
>> I'm sad, but not surprised. I'd had a cover article in the January
>> 2000 IEEE Computer, and interviewed as a finalist to be Editor in
>> Chief of all the Transactions of the IEEE. I was was turned down,
>> officially, for "knowing too much." They had a standard proof reading
>> exam, which they'd used for years, and I found a mistake in their
>> answers, based on my actually understanding the content of the papers
>> cited. They didn't believe me. I emailed the author of said paper,
>> who was startled that I'd found this error in his long ago published
>> paper, which nobody had ever spotted before. That made the IEEE
>> Publisher unhappy, which is when they told me that I knew too much...
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Ivor Catt <> wrote:
>>> Is the most important of advances in science when offered for publication
>>> rejected the quickest?
>>> Here we have an extremely important advance rejected within hours rather
>>> than days!
>>> Perhaps this circulation should email the editors Lombardi and Calder and
>>> congratulate them for their work in holding the fort against scientific
>>> advance (in trying circumstances). The problem is, they will have to live
>>> with ridicule, try for instance a Google search for their predecessor
>>> "pepper frs". What about their future image in history? However, I am
>>> sure
>>> they benefit more in the short term if they hold the line against
>>> scientific
>>> advance. After all, later on, Pepper was "knighted for services to
>>> Physics"
>>> and became editor of the top journal of the Royal Society.
>>> Ivor Catt
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -
> Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2986 - Release Date: 07/06/10
> 19:36:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2987 - Release Date: 07/07/10 07:36:00